Infrastructure Sustainability : Damage Assessment in Multiple-Girder Composite Bridges Using Vibration Characteristics

Assessing the structural health state of urban infrastructure is crucial in terms of infrastructure sustainability. This chapter uses dynamic computer simulation techniques to apply a procedure using vibration-based methods for damage assessment in multiple-girder composite bridges. In addition to changes in natural frequencies, this multi-criteria procedure incorporates two methods, namely, the modal flexibility and the modal strain energy method. Using the numerically simulated modal data obtained through finite element analysis software, algorithms based on modal flexibility and modal strain energy change, before and after damage, are obtained and used as the indices for the assessment of structural health state. The feasibility and capability of the approach is demonstrated through numerical studies of a proposed structure with six damage scenarios. It is concluded that the modal strain energy method is capable of application to multiple-girder composite bridges, as evidenced through the example treated in this chapter.

Infrastructure sustainability : differential axial shortening of concrete structures

High density development has been seen as a contribution to sustainable development. However, a number of engineering issues play a crucial role in the sustainable construction of high rise buildings. Non linear deformation of concrete has an adverse impact on high-rise buildings with complex geometries, due to differential axial shortening. These adverse effects are caused by time dependent behaviour resulting in volume change known as ‘shrinkage’, ‘creep’ and ‘elastic’ deformation. These three phenomena govern the behaviour and performance of all concrete elements, during and after construction. Reinforcement content, variable concrete modulus, volume to surface area ratio of the elements, environmental conditions, and construction quality and sequence influence on the performance of concrete elements and differential axial shortening will occur in all structural systems. Its detrimental effects escalate with increasing height and non vertical load paths resulting from geometric complexity. The magnitude of these effects has a significant impact on building envelopes, building services, secondary systems, and lifetime serviceability and performance. Analytical and test procedures available to quantify the magnitude of these effects are limited to a very few parameters and are not adequately rigorous to capture the complexity of true time dependent material response. With this in mind, a research project has been undertaken to develop an accurate numerical procedure to quantify the differential axial shortening of structural elements. The procedure has been successfully applied to quantify the differential axial shortening of a high rise building, and the important capabilities available in the procedure have been discussed. A new practical concept, based on the variation of vibration characteristic of structure during and after construction and used to quantify the axial shortening and assess the performance of structure, is presented.

Infrastructure sustainability : vulnerability of axially loaded columns subjected to transverse impact loads

Increased industrialisation has brought to the forefront the susceptibility of concrete columns in both buildings and bridges to vehicle impacts. Accurate vulnerability assessments are crucial in the design process due to possible catastrophic nature of the failures that can cause. This chapter reports on research undertaken to investigate the impact capacity of the columns of low to medium raised building designed according to the Australian standards. Numerical simulation techniques were used in the process and validation was done by using experimental results published in the literature. The investigation thus far has confirmed that vulnerability of typical columns in five story buildings located in urban areas to medium velocity car impacts and hence these columns need to be re-designed or retrofitted. In addition, accuracy of the simplified method presented in EN 1991-1-7 to quantify the impact damage was scrutinised. A simplified concept to assess the damage due to all collisions modes was introduced. The research information will be extended to generate a common data base to assess the vulnerability of columns in urban areas against new generation of vehicles.

Developing financial decision support for highway infrastructure sustainability

The development of highway infrastructure typically requires major capital input over a long period. This often causes serious financial constraints for investors. The push for sustainability has added new dimensions to the complexity in the evaluation of highway projects, particularly on the cost front. This makes the determination of long-term viability even more a precarious exercise. Life-cycle costing analysis (LCCA) is generally recognised as a valuable tool for the assessment of financial decisions on construction works. However to date, existing LCCA models are deficient in dealing with sustainability factors, particularly for infrastructure projects due to their inherent focus on the economic issues alone. This research probed into the major challenges of implementing sustainability in highway infrastructure development in terms of financial concerns and obligations. Using results of research through literature review, questionnaire survey of industry stakeholders and semi-structured interview of senior practitioners involved in highway infrastructure development, the research identified the relative importance of cost components relating to sustainability measures and on such basis, developed ways of improving existing LCCA models to incorporate sustainability commitments into long-term financial management. On such a platform, a decision support model incorporated Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process and LCCA for the evaluation of the specific cost components most concerned by infrastructure stakeholders. Two real highway infrastructure projects in Australia were then used for testing, application and validation, before the decision support model was finalised. Improved industry understanding and tools such as the developed model will lead to positive sustainability deliverables while ensuring financial viability over the lifecycle of highway infrastructure projects.

Managing cost implications for highway infrastructure sustainability

Highway construction works have significant bearings on all aspects of sustainability. With the increasing level of public awareness and government regulatory measures, the construction industry is experiencing a cultural shift to recognise, embrace and pursue sustainability. Stakeholders are now keen to identify sustainable alternatives and the financial implications of including them on a lifecycle basis. They need tools that can aid the evaluation of investment options. To date, however, there have not been many financial assessments on the sustainability aspects of highway projects. This is because the existing life-cycle costing analysis (LCCA) models tend to focus on economic issues alone and are not able to deal with sustainability factors. This paper provides insights into the current practice of life-cycle cost analysis, and the identification and quantification of sustainability-related cost components in highway projects through literature review, questionnaire surveys and semi-structured interviews. The results can serve as a platform for highway project stakeholders to develop practical tools to evaluate highway investment decisions and reach an optimum balance between financial viability and sustainability deliverables.

Sustainability outcomes of infrastructure sustainability rating schemes for road projects

The construction and operation of infrastructure assets can have significant impact on society and the region. Using a sustainability assessment framework can be an effective means to build sustainability aspects into the design, construction and operation of infrastructure assets. The conventional evaluation processes and procedures for infrastructure projects do not necessarily measure the qualitative/quantitative effectiveness of all aspects of sustainability: environment, social wellbeing and economy. As a result, a few infrastructure sustainability rating schemes have been developed with a view to assess the level of sustainability attained in the infrastructure projects. These include: Infrastructure Sustainability (Australia); CEEQUAL (UK); and Envision (USA). In addition, road sector specific sustainability rating schemes such as Greenroads (USA) and Invest (Australia) have also been developed. These schemes address several aspects of sustainability with varying emphasis (weightings) on areas such as: use of resources; emission, pollution and waste; ecology; people and place; management and governance; and innovation. The attainment of sustainability of an infrastructure project depends largely on addressing the whole-of-life environmental issues. This study has analysed the rating schemes’ coverage of different environmental components for the road infrastructure under the five phases of a project: material, construction, use, maintenance and end-of-life. This is based on a comprehensive life cycle assessment (LCA) system boundary. The findings indicate that there is a need for the schemes to consider key (high impact) life cycle environmental components such as traffic congestion during construction, rolling resistance due to surface roughness and structural stiffness of the pavement, albedo, lighting, and end-of-life management (recycling) to deliver sustainable road projects.

Decision support system for infrastructure sustainability in operations

There is an increasing awareness of sustainability and climate change and its impact on infrastructure and engineering asset management in design, construction, and operations. Sustainability rating tools have been proposed and/or developed that provide ratings of infrastructure projects in differing phases of their life cycle on sustainability. This paper provides an overview of decision support systems using sustainability rating framework that can be used to prioritize or select tasks and activities within projects to enhance levels of sustainability outcomes. These systems can also be used to prioritize projects within an organization to optimize sustainability outcomes within an allocated budget.

Understanding the business case for infrastructure sustainability

The relationship between corporate and sustainability performance continues to be controversial and unclear, not withstanding numerous theoretical and empirical studies. Despite this, views on corporate responsibilities “meet where management can show how voluntary social and environmental management contributes to the competitiveness and economic success of the company.” This approach is fundamental to the business case for infrastructure sustainability. It suggests that beyond-compliance activities undertaken by companies are commercially justified if they can be shown to contribute to profitability and shareholder value. Potential public good benefits range across a wide spectrum of economic (for example employment, local purchasing, reduced demand for electricity generation), social (indigenous employment and development, equity of access), and environmental (lower greenhouse gas emission, reduced use of non-renewable resources and potable water, less waste, enhanced biodiversity). Some of these benefits have impacts that lie in more than one of the economic, social, and environmental areas of public goods. Using a sustainability rating schemes and potential business benefits from sustainability initiatives, this paper presents a brief summary of an online survey of industry that identifies how rating scheme themes and business benefits relate. This allows for a case to be built demonstrating which sustainability themes offer particular business benefits.

Extending life-cycle costing (LCC) analysis for sustainability considerations in road infrastructure projects

Sustainable development is about making societal investments. These investments should be in synchronization with the natural environment, trends of social development, as well as organisational and local economies over a long time span. Traditionally in the eyes of clients, project development will need to produce the required profit margins, with some degrees of consideration for other impacts. This is being changed as all citizens of our society are becoming more aware of concepts and challenges such as the climate change, greenhouse footprints, and social dimensions of sustainability, and will in turn demand answers to these issues in built facilities. A large number of R&D projects have focused on the technical advancement and environmental assessment of products and built facilities. It is equally important address the cost/benefit issue, as developers in the world would not want to loose money by investing in built assets. For infrastructure projects, due to its significant cost of development and lengthy delivery time, presenting the full money story of going green is of vital importance. Traditional views of life-cycle costing tend to focus on the pure economics of a construction project. Sustainability concepts are not broadly integrated with the current LCCA in the construction sector. To rectify this problem, this paper reports on the progress to date of developing and extending contemporary LCCA models in the evaluation of road infrastructure sustainability. The suggested new model development is based on sustainability indicators identified through previous research, and incorporating industry verified cost elements of sustainability measures. The on-going project aims to design and a working model for sustainability life-cycle costing analysis for this type of infrastructure projects.

Sustainability : driver for decision making in infrastructure

With the growing importance of sustainability assessment in the construction industry, many green building rating schemes have been adopted in the building sector of Australia. However, there is an abnormal delay in the similar adoption in the infrastructure sector. This prolonged delay in practice poses a challenge in mapping the project objectives with sustainability outcomes. Responding to the challenge of sustainable development in infrastructure, it is critical to create a set of decision indicators for sustainability in infrastructure, which to be used in conjunction with the emerging infrastructure sustainability assessment framework of the Australian Green Infrastructure Council. The various literature sources confirm the lack of correlation between sustainability and infrastructure. This theoretical missing link signifies the crucial validation of the interrelationship and interdependency in sustainability, decision making and infrastructure. This validation is vital for the development of decision indicators for sustainability in infrastructure. Admittedly, underpinned by the serious socio-environmental vulnerability, the traditional focus on economic emphasis in infrastructure development needs to be drifted towards the appropriate decisions for sustainability enhancing the positive social and environmental outcomes. Moreover, the research findings suggest sustainability being observed as powerful socio-political and influential socio-environmental driver in deciding the infrastructure needs and its development. These newly developed sustainability decision indicators create the impetus for change leading to sustainability in infrastructure by integrating the societal cares, environmental concerns into the holistic financial consideration. Radically, this development seeks to transform principles into actions for infrastructure sustainability. Lastly, the thesis concludes with knowledge contribution in five significant areas and future research opportunities. The consolidated research outcomes suggest that the development of decision indicators has demonstrated sustainability as a pivotal driver for decision making in infrastructure.

Introducing sustainability assessment to civil infrastructure projects & assets

Civil infrastructure plays a key role in supporting and improving current way of life. However, the assets can have a large impact on the region around them, which are both positive (usually for the purpose they are built) and negative (consequences and unintended effects). There is an increasing trend for society to place an importance on the role of sustainability to ensure that there is a world suitable for future generations. In order to ensure that the world for future generations is in the best possible condition it is increasingly important to look at integrating sustainability outcomes into the way industry operates, including the infrastructure industry. It is therefore important to undertake sustainability assessment of civil infrastructure projects. By having organisations take on sustainability assessments of civil infrastructure assets both during construction and in operation, the industry can assist to drive outcomes and results that will benefit society and future generations and make their own operations more efficient.

Importance of sustainability-related cost components in highway infrastructure : perspective of stakeholders in Australia

Highway infrastructure development typically requires major capital input. Unless planned properly, such requirements can cause serious financial constraints for investors. The push for sustainability adds a new dimension to the complexity of evaluating highway projects. Finding environmentally and socially responsible solutions for highway construction will improve its potential for acceptance by the society and in many instances the infrastructure's life span. Even so, the prediction and determination of a project's long-term financial viability can be a precarious exercise. Existing studies in this area have not indicated details of how to identify and deal with costs incurred in pursuing sustainability measures in highway infrastructure. This paper provides insights into the major challenges of implementing sustainability in highway project development in terms of financial concerns and obligations. It discusses the results from recent research through a literature study and a questionnaire survey of key industry stakeholders involved in highway infrastructure development. The research identified critical cost components relating to sustainability measures based on perspectives of industry stakeholders. All stakeholders believe sustainability related costs are an integral part of the decision making. However, the importance rating of these costs is relative to each stakeholder's core business objectives. This will influence the way these cost components are dealt with during the evaluation of highway investment alternatives and financial implications. This research encourages positive thinking among the highway infrastructure practitioners about sustainability. It calls for the construction industry to maximise sustainability deliverables while ensuring financial viability over the life cycle of highway infrastructure projects.

Sustainability in infrastructure asset management

The expectation to integrate sustainability aspects (social, environmental, and economic success) into the design, delivery, and operation of infrastructure assets is growing rapidly and globally. There are now several tools and frameworks available to benchmark and measure sustainable performance of infrastructure projects and assets. This paper briefly describes the infrastructure sustainability (IS) rating tool developed by the Australian Green Infrastructure Council (AGIC) that was launched in February 2012. This tool evaluates sustainability initiatives and potential environmental, social, and economic impacts of infrastructure projects and assets. The rating tool provides the following benefits to industry: a common national language for sustainability; a vehicle for consistent application and evaluation of sustainability in tendering processes; assists in scoping whole-of-life sustainability risks, enabling smarter solutions that reduce risks and costs; fosters resource efficiency and waste reduction, reducing costs; fosters innovation and continuous improvement in sustainability outcomes; and builds an organization’s credentials and reputation in its approach to sustainability. The infrastructure types covered by this tool include transport, energy, water, and communication. The key themes of sustainability evaluation will be briefly presented in this paper, and they include management and governance; use of resources; emissions, pollution, and waste; ecology; people and place; and innovation.

Sustainable urban infrastructure development in south east Asia : evidence from Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore

Many South East Asian cities have experienced substantial physical, economic and social transformations during the past several decades. The rapid pace of globalisation and economic restructuring has resulted in these cities receiving the full impact of urbanisation pressures. In an attempt to ease these pressures, cities such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur have advocated growth management approaches focussing especially on urban infrastructure sustainability. These approaches aim to achieve triple bottom line sustainability by balancing economic and social development, and environmental protection. This chapter evaluates three Asia-Pacific city cases, Singapore, Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur, and assesses their experiences in managing their urban forms and infrastructure whilst promoting sustainable patterns of urban development.

Sustainable urban infrastructure development in South East Asia : evidence from Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore

Many South East Asian cities have experienced substantial physical, economic and social transformations during the past several decades. The rapid pace of globalization and economic restructuring has resulted in these cities receiving the full impact of urbanization pressures. In an attempt to ease these pressures, cities such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur have advocated growth management approaches focusing especially on urban infrastructure sustainability. These approaches aim to achieve triple bottom line sustainability by balancing economic and social development, and environmental protection. This chapter evaluates three Asia-Pacific city cases, Singapore, Hong Kong and Kuala Lumpur, and assesses their experiences in managing their urban forms and infrastructure whilst promoting sustainable patterns of urban development.